CDZ Times, they are a changin'...you need to change with them or get left behind

[320 Years of History]

It seems almost daily that folks decry that their jobs have been "exported" to other countries. Hello!

• What part of the globalized economy did they not see coming over the past half century? What part of the basic laws of supply and demand did they think weren't "on point?"
• What part of "profit motive" is so lost on them that they don't understand why a company would opt to use less dear labor provided in other countries?
• What about there being 1.7 billion people who speak Mandarin and 1.1 billion who speak Hindi suggests to them that speaking only English will be sufficient going forward?
• What about waking to see the dawn of the information age suggests that tangible production of goods is where most U.S. jobs will exist in the future?
• What about the advances in miniaturization and robotics makes folks think that their rote-work job won't soon be done by a machine?

In my mind, if one can't "see the writing on the wall," "writing" that isn't remotely speculative but that is instead as sure as the day is long, one deserves to find oneself in the position of bemoaning the stuff folks are "on about" these days re: jobs being exported or performed by machines. Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of all the whiners, and the politicians who pander to them. Get over it. Time are changing and you need to change with them. Period.

 

[Tehon]

The globalists hired a good actor and put a nice spin on the future of free trade. I think Americans are suffering buyers remorse now. Especially when you throw in the damage NAFTA did to the Mexican job market and how that effected illegal immigration in this country. All hail Saint Ronnie.

 

[320 Years of History]

The globalists hired a good actor and put a nice spin on the future of free trade. I think Americans are suffering buyers remorse now. Especially when you throw in the damage NAFTA did to the Mexican job market and how that effected illegal immigration in this country. All hail Saint Ronnie.

Spin? What spin? The pros and cons of free trade have been understood at since Adam Smith. While its hand may be invisible, capitalism's effects are not. One cannot one the one hand want the "laissez faire" of capitalism and at the same time bitch and moan because that "free hand," due to comparative advantage, inspires purchasers of labor to purchase it from someone other than oneself.

The fact is that the U.S. at the moment has neither a comparative advantage nor absolute advantage in rote physical labor; therefore it's pure folly to think that the folks who purchase labor will, given an alternative, buy it from a U.S. worker instead of a far less costly foreign worker. So if one is going to espouse capitalism, one must take the good of it with the bad of it. That or espouse something other than a market driven economy.

 

[Tehon]

The globalists hired a good actor and put a nice spin on the future of free trade. I think Americans are suffering buyers remorse now. Especially when you throw in the damage NAFTA did to the Mexican job market and how that effected illegal immigration in this country. All hail Saint Ronnie.

Spin? What spin? The pros and cons of free trade have been understood at since Adam Smith. While its hand may be invisible, capitalism's effects are not. One cannot one the one hand want the "laissez faire" of capitalism and at the same time bitch and moan because that "free hand," due to comparative advantage, inspires purchasers of labor to purchase it from someone other than oneself.

The fact is that the U.S. at the moment has neither a comparative advantage nor absolute advantage in rote physical labor; therefore it's pure folly to think that the folks who purchase labor will, given an alternative, buy it from a U.S. worker instead of a far less costly foreign worker. So if one is going to espouse capitalism, one must take the good of it with the bad of it. That or espouse something other than a market driven economy.

You're preaching to the choir brother. I was trying to give the rubes the benefit of the doubt. Not all the rubes have enough critical thinking skills to see past their partisan politicians brand of rhetoric. That's why I brought up the immigration angle, I don't think many people make the connection. NAFTA was marketed to Americans for at least 15 years before it went into affect. That's a lot of propagandizing.

 

[320 Years of History]

The globalists hired a good actor and put a nice spin on the future of free trade. I think Americans are suffering buyers remorse now. Especially when you throw in the damage NAFTA did to the Mexican job market and how that effected illegal immigration in this country. All hail Saint Ronnie.

Spin? What spin? The pros and cons of free trade have been understood at since Adam Smith. While its hand may be invisible, capitalism's effects are not. One cannot one the one hand want the "laissez faire" of capitalism and at the same time bitch and moan because that "free hand," due to comparative advantage, inspires purchasers of labor to purchase it from someone other than oneself.

The fact is that the U.S. at the moment has neither a comparative advantage nor absolute advantage in rote physical labor; therefore it's pure folly to think that the folks who purchase labor will, given an alternative, buy it from a U.S. worker instead of a far less costly foreign worker. So if one is going to espouse capitalism, one must take the good of it with the bad of it. That or espouse something other than a market driven economy.

You're preaching to the choir brother. I was trying to give the rubes the benefit of the doubt. Not all the rubes have enough critical thinking skills to see past their partisan politicians brand of rhetoric. That's why I brought up the immigration angle, I don't think many people make the connection. NAFTA was marketed to Americans for at least 15 years before it went into affect. That's a lot of propagandizing.

Red:
Fair enough.

Blue:
LOL. Okay. Given the "rubes" penchant for being "loud, strong and wrong," I long ago gave up bestowing that benefit. LOL

 

[Anathema]

Ill take "Option B - Get left behind", please

 

[Unkotare]

Just about every one of those Hindi and Mandarin speakers under the age of 30 is learning English.

 

[TNHarley]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

 

[TNHarley]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

That link is ridiculous. NAZI Germany was not corporatist LOL. They even said Russia was communist..

 

[PK1]

Time are changing and you need to change with them. Period.

---
True!
Very Darwinian. Natural selection.
Adapt or die.
Religion is not much help.
No need to BS about "humanity".
.

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

That link is ridiculous. NAZI Germany was not corporatist LOL. They even said Russia was communist..

Well, please provide your own link that explains what the heck "corporatism" is. I've provided one that explains the concept as I and the economists at San Jose State University understand it, and you've said they/I don't know what they are talking about. Truly, I don't really care whom they label as being corporatist or not. I want to know whether the principles of the concept are what you meant to reference. The concept doesn't change because that writer said NAZIs or anyone else is or is not corporatist.

 

[320 Years of History]

Time are changing and you need to change with them. Period.

---
True!
Very Darwinian. Natural selection.
Adapt or die.
Religion is not much help.
No need to BS about "humanity".
.

I have never shied away from being called an economic or social Darwinist. About the only thing making me not be more of one than I am is that I know our society wouldn't cotton to it. It's not that I think socially and economically Darwinist ideas are wrong somehow; it's that that I don't' think they are implementable given the nature of our culture.

 

[oldsoul]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

 

[320 Years of History]

Corporatism isn't natural, OP.
You speak as if this is some sort of evolution, yet, it is entirely man made.
I agree about the robotics, though.

Are you sure corporatism is what you meant to say?

• The Economic System of Corporatism

I certainly didn't have that economic theory in mind. I'm not sure what inspired you to mention it.

Certainly sounds like a perfect description of what we have here....

Corporatism:

• The society and economy of a country are organized into major interest groups (sometimes called corporations) and representatives of those interest groups settle any problems through negotiation and joint agreement. In contrast to a market economy which operates through competition a corporate economic works through collective bargaining.

It doesn't sound like what we have going on to me, although aspects of it are present in our "system." To that end, I will recognize that corporatism is a continuous concept rather than a binary one. I don't see much negotiation; what I see is the folks in power exerting their power to do what they want so long as they have the power and obstructing action when the power must unavoidably be shared. That's not my idea of negotiation; that's "I want all of what I want, and you can't have any of what you want, so long as I have any say in the matter."

Regardless of whether our society is or is not corporatist -- even mentioning that strikes me as a red herring to side track the topic of the thread -- seems irrelevant. Times are changing no matter whether we are corporatist, free market oriented, or anything else. The point of the thread is that all the grumbling about "exported job this" and "can't get a job that" is just folks loudly "on about" what boils down to their not having paid attention to the "writing on the wall" and now what was portended has come to be and the grumblers are "stuck out in the cold," so to speak, and they want to blame their misfortune on damn near anyone other than themselves.

For example, if one has kids, what kinds of input does one give them?

• What guidance did one give them re: studying foreign language? Did one say the following, for example? "You can take Spanish or French if you want to, but you better take Mandarin too because by the time you are grown the Chinese will have a role in the global economy that cannot be ignored and knowing Mandarin will make it easier for you to succeed in that economy."
• What guidance did one give them about whether to become very good with math and computer science skills?
• Is one telling one's kids that although the so-called "health care revolution" has been long anticipated, it hasn't really happened, but surely by your generation's majority, it will, so being strong in chemistry and biology will give you a "leg up" in being part of that wave of innovation?
• Has one said to them that although miniaturization is always going to be "in demand," robotics is just now getting to the point that it can assume a "Jetsons-esque" role in the daily lives of the masses, so if physics, biomechanics, or various engineering fields interest you, see what appeals to you that can have robotics applications.
• Are people saying to their kids, "We live in a globalized world, and in that world there are huge portions of it that have not ascended to the levels of advancement that we have in the U.S. and Western Europe. If you are to make a tidy living, you can surely find your fortune by learning from the mistakes made in the West and/or building on our advances and being part of the tide that makes them or better available in the underdeveloped part(s) of the world."?

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

I'll tell you want one is good for. Complaining and singing "woe is me." And that, backed with plenty of hubris and nostalgia for days long gone, is what I see a lot of these days. Too much for my taste.

 

[Elvis Obama]

If you want to advocate for social Darwinism, so be it. It seems a bit cruel to begrudge those who are crushed under the wheels of progress the right to scream, though.

While it's true that economic systems respond to change, without much consideration for the social implications of that change, we are also supposed to be evolving systems of ethics and morality as well, aren't we? The implications of these changes go far beyond the impact on individuals. Those who are left behind, who are replaced by automation or displaced due to a shift from a manufacturing to a service based economy, become problems. They swell the ranks of the poor. They tend to have more children, not less, and fail to provide their children with the opportunities they need to break out of their trap.

Retraining programs can help. Learning how to manage change better would also help. Suggesting that some poor Southerner, who responded to the call for factory workers in WWII and who moved north, that they should have read the writing on the wall and known that the manufacturing base was shrinking and therefore should have planned their transition to a service economy, is a bit harsh, imo. That's like suggesting that the serfs should have recognized the rise of mercantilism and trained themselves to raise sheep. Serfs were not in a position to recognize the rise of mercantilism, they were not in a position to retrain themselves, and there were not enough jobs are sheep herders to re-employ more than a small percentage of them.

 

[PK1]

If you want to advocate for social Darwinism, so be it. It seems a bit cruel to begrudge those who are crushed under the wheels of progress the right to scream, though.
While it's true that economic systems respond to change, without much consideration for the social implications of that change, we are also supposed to be evolving systems of ethics and morality as well, aren't we?
...
Serfs were not in a position to recognize ... they were not in a position to retrain themselves, ...

---
Social Darwinism is reality, IMO.
Adaptation to our rapidly expanding "human ecology" (esp Internet) will work best at the social/group level, and a balance between competition & cooperation (teamwork, win-win) will be most efficient.

That's where ethics & law will need to assist the current revolution in our global economy ... to correct the re-growing imbalance between the few rich & many poor, as reflected in the royalty-serf ages.

Biological evolution works at the group level; individuals are sometimes sacrificed for the benefit (survival, expansion) of their species gene pool.
However, ethically, we can & should try to benefit the lifestyles of ALL citizens in the Earth empire, and providing a decent EDUCATION for everyone is a good policy.
.

 

[oldsoul]

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

Where you intending to imply that the fact that so many young people coming out of high school and college cannot find work, is to be blamed on their parents? I would think that to be a bit unfair. It would be fair to say that they, as a group, failed their children in the aspect of advice on what to do with their lives. However, is it not the responsibility of each individual to educate themselves to a point where they can make informed decisions on this matter? Would it not be fair to say that the bulk of the blame still rests squarely on the shoulders of those "left behind"? Would it not, also be fair to say that the education system shares in this blame (ie. not advising students that a philosophy major is essentially worthless outside of acedemia)?

 

[Holos]

It seems almost daily that folks decry that their jobs have been "exported" to other countries. Hello!

• What part of the globalized economy did they not see coming over the past half century? What part of the basic laws of supply and demand did they think weren't "on point?"
• What part of "profit motive" is so lost on them that they don't understand why a company would opt to use less dear labor provided in other countries?
• What about there being 1.7 billion people who speak Mandarin and 1.1 billion who speak Hindi suggests to them that speaking only English will be sufficient going forward?
• What about waking to see the dawn of the information age suggests that tangible production of goods is where most U.S. jobs will exist in the future?
• What about the advances in miniaturization and robotics makes folks think that their rote-work job won't soon be done by a machine?

In my mind, if one can't "see the writing on the wall," "writing" that isn't remotely speculative but that is instead as sure as the day is long, one deserves to find oneself in the position of bemoaning the stuff folks are "on about" these days re: jobs being exported or performed by machines. Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of all the whiners, and the politicians who pander to them. Get over it. Time are changing and you need to change with them. Period.

Hello OP,

First I would like to ask who are those "folks" you are taking as reference? I would like a concrete answer to begin this discussion, not just a generalized aggroupation such as you have already done (whiners, politicians, etc). Do you have actual names and authentic profiles?

It seems to me you are just being swayed by a trend of expressionism, which relates more to psychology than with the functioning economy (therefore possibly making your rhetorical bullet points a sidetrack to the situation in question - I was very confused by your wording and organization of them too).

If you could first enumerate how many people you personally know with the given political stance you are sharing and then briefly describe their professional histories to assure me you are not simply attempting to analyse popular expressionism, I believe I could better take into account the totality of your post.

If perhaps it may happen that indeed you are interested in understanding the situation as psychological phenonema, then I would be no less interested in engaging in a possible explanation.

In any case, I need your claim to be better presented so that my answer can actually be relevant and understood according to your request with the initiation of the thread.

 

[320 Years of History]

Quite frankly, if that (or similar) is not the input one is giving one's kids (or gave them a few years ago), the "blame," the "problem," when some years from now they can't get a good job, isn't them or anyone else, it's oneself. In short, if one is not giving one's descendents insights on how to prepare for and where to find the best opportunities upon their entry into the workforce, what good is one?

Where you intending to imply that the fact that so many young people coming out of high school and college cannot find work, is to be blamed on their parents? I would think that to be a bit unfair. It would be fair to say that they, as a group, failed their children in the aspect of advice on what to do with their lives. However, is it not the responsibility of each individual to educate themselves to a point where they can make informed decisions on this matter? Would it not be fair to say that the bulk of the blame still rests squarely on the shoulders of those "left behind"? Would it not, also be fair to say that the education system shares in this blame (ie. not advising students that a philosophy major is essentially worthless outside of academia)?

First, let's be clear...by "finding work," (or cannot find it) I'm speaking of work that is "in their field," a job/career that is what they saw themselves as going to school to obtain. I realize there are plenty of jobs those folks can get. I don't think you were hinting that I meant anything other than that, but I want to make that clear before others who might try to "dance on that pinhead" make for that ball.

Red:
In part, yes. Certainly to the extent that their parents fail to identify and interpret "the writing on the wall" for their kids. And why shouldn't parents bear part of the burden.

Blue:
Yes, I agree. That is what underpins my "yes" answer to the "red" question.

Pink:
It is, but that responsibility isn't the same for kids as it is for parents. I don't begin to hold against one one's failure to become well educated on XYZ until one is no longer in one's parents' care.

Green:
I think that burden becomes one's own when, after becoming an adult, one persists in doing nothing to "get on board," so to speak, and instead sings "woe is me" because the river flows east yet they insist on rowing upstream, as it were. I think trying to go against the flow is fine and even necessary in intellectual and discursive contexts, but on a purely practical level, that of getting work, doing so is pointless. Every ship changes course more readily from within than from without.

Purple:
I'm somewhat reluctant to say what extent of blame the education system rightly has for this matter. I am not privy to how most schools advise their charges. I know what sorts of career/college advising my own kids got and by and large it came down to a handful of central ideas:

• X, Y, and Z are the key fields expected to be in high demand in the next 30 years.
• If you aren't going to be among the top 5% of your class/major, you'll want to focus on one of those areas because demand for those skills will be great enough that one need not be "the best" to be successful.
• If an esoteric discipline be where you heart lie, you'll have to pursue graduate studies and you'll need to be among the top of the field to find success outside of academia.
• You can study anything you want as an undergraduate and still pursue a career in academia, business or law; just maintain your track record of being in the top 5% and you'll have no trouble.
• The most important skill you'll develop is how to make things happen, and the most useless one you'll acquire is that of figuring out all the reasons your dreams won't come to fruition.

At the end of the day, even master stone masons and ball kickers can have very rewarding careers, but only if they are going to be the at the top of the game. On the other hand, a programmer need not be the very best to have a good career. The thing to understand is the economics of the labor market, and that's what any good career/college advisor shares.

I'll give you an example. One of my mentorees wants to major in music and be a professional musician, a career for which there is limited demand. He has dreams of being a star, but mostly he just wants to make a decent living at it because he likes to play music. He doesn't want to teach music. His parents have tried to steer him toward something "practical" like engineering, largely because they want him to be able to support himself. LOL

I don't know much about music as a career, so I approached the few folks whom I know in that world...a composer/conductor, a classical musician, and a music producer who put us in contact with some music technologists (engineers). I also reached out to a patent attorney and an acoustic physicist (I didn't know the guy at all; I just called the school and explained what I wanted to discuss. We showed up during one day during his scheduled office hours.) I set up meetings with each of them for myself and my mentoree, and we discussed what it takes to pursue various fields as careers in music.

Interestingly, it turns out that for performance musicians, the most important "skill" isn't being the best at playing notes, but rather having a very good work ethic. Well, that's great news for "my kid" as he's decent but not the best at playing/reading notes and he's not the most creative guy at arranging them, but he's excellent at being prepared, anticipating pitfalls and mitigating them, being on time, and having a "can do" attitude. It seems that the music business is overloaded with "prima dona" types who can't be relied upon to "get the job done." Apparently, one can pull the prima dona thing when one is Beyonce, but before becoming that big, one must first be a reliable studio/road performer, part of the band, so to speak. There's a great career to be had doing that and with a solid work ethic, one is unlikely to ever want for work. Who knew? I damn sure didn't, although I knew that as with much, "it's all about business first."

As you may imagine, the input we got from the more conventional professionals was much as one would expect. Go to school; do well in your studies, yada, yada, yada. Surprisingly, he now thinks he's more interested in music-related engineering than in being a career performance musician. The technologist showed him some of the projects he's worked on and the boy got all "hot and bothered" over the idea of designing and building audio/audio-technology devices. We also discovered the connection between acoustics, medicine and "spy stuff" among other things.

At the end of all those conversations, I don't think the boy is 100% sure of what he wants to do -- he's been loving his economics classes and he's happened upon a newfound interest in history -- but he's found out that there are multiple routes that allow him to connect his music interest with more options than being a performing musician, and he's found out that several of those areas coincide with fields that are expected to be in high demand when he enters the workforce. Most importantly, he's figured out that while he probably cannot and will not be the best musician out there, he can be among the very best engineers or physicists, that he is in fact interested deeply in those disciplines, and that he can work in those areas and maintain the connection with his passion for music in general.